Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-rpk4r Total loading time: 0.194 Render date: 2022-07-01T04:42:18.781Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Should We Aim for Consensus?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Abstract

There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance”–we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Jeffrey. 1994. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Beatty, John. 2006. “Masking Disagreement among Experts.” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1): 5267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” Philosophical Review 116(2): 187217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989/1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, pp. 6791. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, Rose, Mary R., and Beth, Murphy. 2006. “Revisiting the Unanimity Requirement: The Behavior of the Non-Unanimous Civil Jury.” Northwestern University Law Review 100(1): 201–30.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Michael and Robert, Skipper. 2007. “Manipulating Underdetermination in Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Molecular Clock.” Perspectives on Science 15(3): 295326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1986/1997. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, pp. 334. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods, pp. 194214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1987. “Modelling Collective Belief.” Synthese 73(1): 185204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1996. “More on Collective Belief.” In Living Together, pp. 339–60. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Guston, David. 2006. “On Consensus and Voting in Science.” In Frickel, S. and Moore, K. (eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science, pp. 378405. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis, Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981/1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. McCarthy, T. (trans.). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 167–96.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15(3): 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane with Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Estlund, David, Føllesdal, Andreas, Fung, Archon, Lafont, Cristina, Manin, Bernard, and Martí, José Luis. 2010. “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 64100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert. 1957/1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science, pp. 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1859/1991. On Liberty. In On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moffett, Marc. 2007. “Reasonable Disagreement and Rational Group Inquiry.Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 4(3): 352–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan. 1977. “Interactions Between Jurors as a Function of Majority vs. Unanimity Decision Rules.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7(1): 3856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Eric, Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. 2001. “Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism.” Philosophical Perspectives 15: 6991.Google Scholar
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2008. “Voting the General Will: Rousseau on Decision Rules.” Political Theory 36(3): 403–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2006. “Groupthink versus The Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 44: 2842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, Dana R. 1992. “Postmodernism and the Public Sphere.” American Political Science Review 86(3): 712–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark. 1996. “Deliberative Democracy and Authority.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 4660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Should We Aim for Consensus?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Should We Aim for Consensus?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Should We Aim for Consensus?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *